Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 3585, 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3585 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A HILLSIDE PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF CHINQUAPIN AVENUE. CASE NAME: SEA GABLES CASE NO: HDP 93-01 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A 15-UNIT CONDOMINIUM WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: A portion of Block W of Palisades #2, according to Map thereof No. 1803 and Lots 3-8 of Palisades, according to Map thereof No. 1747, has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; an' WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided 1 Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1 st day of December, 199: consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony ar arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered : factors relating to the Hillside Development Permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissic as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commissil DENIES HDP 93-01, based on the following findings: Findin~s: 1. In order to develop the project as proposed, Variances are required. The requir findings for those Variances cannot be made. .... a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~ 20 21 23 22 ~ 2. Significant unresolved issues remain, which would require a redesign of thc project. These issues include failures to comply with City ordinances, standards and policies as identified in Exhibit Z, staffs issues letter dated November 1,1993 included herein by reference. Any redesign could, in turn, result in additiona issues not currently identified. 3. Hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map whicl show existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages. 4. Undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properl; identified on the constraints map. 5. The development proposal is not consistent with the intent, purpose, an( requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, because the propose( project is designed to project over the top of the steep slope area, and therefor1 does not preserve the natural appearance of the slope. 6. The proposed grading and development will occur in the undevelopable portion: of the site because the structures at the southwestern comer of the site extenc over the top of the slope and development occurs along the top of the slope sucl that extensive retaining walls are required. 7. The project design and lot configuration does not minimize disturbance of hillsidc lands because grading and development are proposed into the steep slope area. 8. The proposed project does not substantially conform to the intent of the concept: illustrated in the hillside development guidelines manual because it propose: development extending over the top of the slopes. ~ ~ -... ~ ".. .... i ~ .... ~ I ~ .-.- ~ ~ I1 -.*. 24 25 26 27 28 .... .... PC RES0 NO. 3585 -2- a 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 199: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Bet Welshons, Savary, Erwin & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ’. I .I .. “a d BAILEY NOBg, Chairperson CAEUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION l2 ll ATTEST: 13 14 15 16 17 18 PLANNING DIRECTOR 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3585 -3- 28